Long-term treatment with ganaxolone for seizures associated with cyclin-dependent kinase-like 5 deficiency disorder: Two-year open-label extension follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: In the placebo-controlled, double-blind phase of the Marigold study (NCT03572933), ganaxolone significantly reduced major motor seizure frequency (MMSF) in patients with cyclin-dependent kinase-like 5 deficiency disorder (CDD). We report 2-year safety and clinical outcomes data from the open-label extension (OLE) phase of Marigold. METHODS: Patients with CDD who completed the double-blind phase were eligible to continue in the OLE. Efficacy assessments included MMSF reduction from prerandomization baseline, responder rates, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scores, including assessment of seizure intensity and duration (CGI-CSID). Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and TEAEs leading to discontinuation. RESULTS: Of 101 patients who enrolled in Marigold, 88 (87.1%) entered the OLE (median age = 5 years, 79.5% female). Median 28-day MMSF at baseline was 50.6. At 2 years in the OLE (months 22-24), MMSF was reduced by a median of 48.2% (n = 50); when missing data were imputed, median reduction in MMSF was 43.8% using a mixed effects model and 27.4% using a last observation carried forward model. During months 22-24, 23 of 50 (46.0%) patients experienced reductions in MMSF of ≥50%; 12 of 50 (24.0%) patients experienced MMSF reductions of ≥75%. During months 22-24, 40 of 49 (81.6%) patients were rated by caregivers as having improvement in seizure-related outcomes based on CGI-CSID scores. Thirty-seven patients discontinued ganaxolone due to lack of efficacy (n = 13), withdrawal by caregiver (n = 12), adverse event (n = 10), physician decision (n = 1), or death (n = 1; unrelated to study drug). The most common treatment-related TEAEs were somnolence (17.0%), seizure (11.4%), and decreased appetite (5.7%). Patients reported serious TEAEs (n = 28, 31.8%); those reported in ≥3% of patients were seizure (n = 6), pneumonia (n = 5), acute respiratory failure (n = 3), aspiration pneumonia (n = 3), and dehydration (n = 3). SIGNIFICANCE: Sustained reductions in MMSF at 2 years in the OLE support the efficacy of ganaxolone in seizures associated with CDD. Safety findings in the OLE were consistent with the double-blind phase.

Intravenous ganaxolone in pediatric super-refractory status epilepticus: A single hospital experience.

Synaptic GABAA receptor (GABAAR) internalization contributes to the drug resistant nature of super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE). Ganaxolone is a 3ß-methylated synthetic analog of the endogenous neuroactive steroid, allopregnanolone, that has positive allosteric modulatory activity on synaptic and extrasynaptic GABAA receptors. Ganaxolone is currently in clinical trials to treat rare pediatric seizure disorders and established and refractory SE. Two pediatric patients with SRSE (age 17 and age 7) were treated under emergency investigational new drug (E-IND) applications with intravenous (IV) ganaxolone administered as an initial bolus and a maintenance infusion for up to 4.5 days with intermittent IV boluses as-needed followed by taper on day 5 and transitioned to chronic treatment using ganaxolone suspension. Adjunctive ganaxolone was effective in terminating SRSE in both patients, safely permitting IV anesthetics to be weaned. Seizure control has been maintained after transitioning to enteric ganaxolone. Further investigation of ganaxolone as a safe and effective treatment for SRSE is warranted.

EEG parameters as endpoints in epilepsy clinical trials - An expert panel opinion paper.

INTRODUCTION: The lack of ideal measurement of treatment efficacy is a well acknowledged problem in the epilepsy community, both in clinical care and clinical trials. Whilst still the current gold-standard, self-reported seizure frequency significantly underestimates the true number of seizures and does not account for any other at least equally important outcome parameters, such as neurodevelopment and cognition. With the rise of disease modifying treatments, the need for more reliable endpoints in practice and clinical trials becomes more pressing. In this paper we assembled an expert panel to discuss the nature of these needs, current limitations, and obstacles based on a survey amongst these experts who were queried about the most important issues regarding the use of electroencephalography (EEG) parameters as endpoints in clinical drug and device development. METHODS: A structured survey was sent to a group of experts in the design and conduct of epilepsy trials in adults and children. This was followed by a virtual in-person meeting discussing the results of the trial and identifying a list of most important issues. RESULTS: Six clinical trialists and 5 individuals from pharmaceutical companies returned the survey containing 14 questions, and 8 clinical trialists and 10 pharma-representatives attended the meeting. Three main issues were identified (1) lack of accuracy of seizure diaries due to nocturnal seizures, subtle motor seizures, impairment of consciousness and lack of awareness of the seizure by the patient (2) inter-rater variability of EEG assessment (3) lack of standardization regarding definition(s) of seizures (clinical and electrographic), EEG recording methods and EEG data management. Recommended solutions included (1) validation of EEG parameters as biomarkers and use of wearables (2) development of a manual that describes EEG rating criteria, protocol for validation by > 1 central reader and use of a resolution of disagreements reporting template (3) standardization of EEG recording, data management and reporting. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION: Current developments in research and technology seem promising to advance the use of EEG parameters as potential endpoints and offer partial solutions to the current needs. However, continuous, focused and collaborative efforts of all stakeholders (academia, industry and regulatory agencies) are needed to formulate guidelines, validate emerging technologies and approve them for use in trials. It is the intent of this opinion "position paper" to stimulate those efforts.

Topiramate intervention to prevent transformation of episodic migraine: the topiramate INTREPID study.

OBJECTIVE: The study sought to evaluate whether topiramate prevents development of chronic daily headache (CDH, ≥15 headache days per month) in adult subjects with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM, 9-14 migraine headache days/month). A secondary objective was to assess the efficacy of topiramate as preventive migraine treatment in this population. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing topiramate 100 mg/day and placebo for 26 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was new-onset CDH at month 6. Secondary efficacy measures included migraine and headache days. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 159 topiramate subjects and 171 placebo subjects were efficacy-evaluable. At month 6, 1.4% of topiramate subjects versus 2.3% of placebo subjects had CDH (p = .589). Compared with placebo, topiramate treatment was associated with statistically significant reductions in mean number of migraine days (6.6 vs. 5.3/28 days; p = .001) and headache days (6.6 vs 5.3/28 days; p = .001). Most commonly reported AEs in the topiramate versus placebo group included paresthesia (32.4% vs. 7.0%), fatigue (14.8% vs. 8.6%), dizziness (11.4% vs. 7.6%) and nausea (10.8% vs. 9.2%). CONCLUSION: Topiramate 100 mg/day did not prevent the development of CDH at six months in subjects with HFEM. Topiramate was effective in reducing headache days and migraine headache days and generally well tolerated.

Association Between Treatment Progression, Disease Refractoriness, and Burden of Illness Among Hospitalized Patients With Status Epilepticus.

Importance: Status epilepticus (SE) is associated with poor clinical outcomes and high cost. Increased levels of refractory SE require treatment with additional medications and carry increased morbidity and mortality, but the associations between SE refractoriness, clinical outcomes, and cost remain poorly characterized. Objective: To examine differences in clinical outcomes and costs associated with hospitalization for SE of varying refractoriness. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study of 43 988 US hospitalizations from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018, was conducted, including patients with primary or secondary International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, diagnosis specifying "with status epilepticus." Exposure: Patients were categorized by administration of antiseizure drugs given during hospitalization. Low refractoriness denoted treatment with none or 1 intravenous antiseizure drug. Moderate refractoriness denoted treatment with more than 1 intravenous antiseizure drug. High refractoriness denoted treatment with 1 or more intravenous antiseizure drug, more than 1 intravenous anesthetic, and intensive care unit admission. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included discharge disposition, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay, hospital-acquired conditions, and cost (total and per diem). Results: Among 43 988 hospitalizations for SE, 22 851 patients (51.9%) were male; mean age was 49.9 years (95% CI, 49.7-50.1 years). There were 14 694 admissions (33.4%) for low refractory, 10 140 (23.1%) for moderate refractory, and 19 154 (43.5%) for highly refractory SE. In-hospital mortality was 11.2% overall, with the highest rates among patients with highly (18.9%) compared with moderate (6.3%) and low (4.6%) refractory SE (P < .001 for all comparisons). Median hospital length of stay was 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2-10 days) with greater length of stay in highly (8 days; IQR, 4-15 days) compared with moderate (4 days; IQR, 2-8 days) and low (3 days; IQR, 2-5 days) refractory SE (P < .001 for all comparisons). Patients with highly refractory SE also had greater hospital costs, with median costs of $25 105 (mean [SD], $41 858 [$59 063]) in the high, $10 592 (mean [SD], $18 328 [$30 776]) in the moderate, and $6812 (mean [SD], $11 532 [$17 228]) in the low refractory cohorts (P < .001 for all comparisons). Conclusions and Relevance: Status epilepticus apparently continues to be associated with a large burden on patients and the US health system, with high mortality and costs that increase with disease refractoriness. Interventions that prevent SE from progressing to a more refractory state may have the potential to improve outcomes and lower costs associated with this neurologic condition.

Carisbamate in essential tremor: brief report of a proof of concept study.

The efficacy and safety of carisbamate, an investigational neuromodulator currently in development for epilepsy, were examined in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over, placebo-controlled study of essential tremor. Sixty-two patients (intent-to-treat analysis set; mean age 64 years; 66% men) received carisbamate 400 mg/day or matching placebo in a crossover study design with two 21-day treatment periods. The Fahn-Tolosa-Marín Tremor Rating Scale (TRS) was the primary assessment tool. Carisbamate and placebo treatment did not differ in their effect on the TRS (P = 0.94) or on measures of affect, mood, or quality of life. Carisbamate was generally well tolerated and had an adverse event profile comparable to that of placebo.

Efficacy, tolerability, and safety of rapid initiation of topiramate versus phenytoin in patients with new-onset epilepsy: a randomized double-blind clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate topiramate (TPM) and phenytoin (PHT) monotherapy following rapid oral initiation in new-onset epilepsy. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, 28-day trial of TPM (100 mg/day beginning on day 1) versus PHT (1,000 mg on day 1 followed by 300 mg/day maintenance dosing) in 261 patients with new-onset epilepsy. The primary end point was time to seizure, and the primary objective was to establish noninferiority of TPM to PHT in the risk of seizure. RESULTS: At day 28, the estimated seizure-free rate was 81.1% for TPM treatment in comparison with 90.3% for PHT treatment. Noninferiority of TPM to PHT (primary objective) could not be established [hazard ratio (HR) 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.98 to 4.12, p = 0.366), and PHT could not be shown to be superior to TPM. A higher percentage discontinued with PHT compared to TPM for all reasons (21.1 vs. 12.8%) and due to adverse events (13.4 vs. 6.8%). The most common treatment-related adverse events in both groups were dizziness, paresthesia, and somnolence. A post hoc analysis showed that TPM was superior to PHT in time to discontinuation (retention rate) for all causes (89.4% vs. 80.3%, p = 0.047). CONCLUSION: This study was inconclusive in establishing noninferiority of TPM 100 mg/day compared to a standard regimen of oral PHT in seizure risk in this population of patients with new-onset epilepsy. Given the superiority of TPM in overall retention and favorable tolerability without titration, it may nonetheless be an appropriate option in some patients with new-onset epilepsy requiring rapid treatment initiation.

Topiramate versus amitriptyline in migraine prevention: a 26-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group noninferiority trial in adult migraineurs.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate and amitriptyline in the prophylaxis of episodic migraine headache. METHODS: This was a 26-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group noninferiority study. Adults with 3 to 12 migraines per month were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive an initial dose of 25 mg/d of either topiramate or amitriptyline, subsequently titrated to a maximum of 100 mg/d (or the maximum tolerated dose). The primary efficacy outcome was the change from prospective baseline in the mean monthly number of migraine episodes. Secondary efficacy variables included changes from the prospective baseline phase to the end of the double-blind phase in the mean monthly (28-day) rate of days with migraine, mean monthly rate of days with headache (migraine and nonmigraine), mean monthly rate of acute abortive medication use, mean monthly migraine duration, and mean monthly migraine severity. Additional secondary efficacy variables included changes in the mean monthly severity of migraine-associated symptoms (photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea), change in the mean monthly frequency f migraine-associated vomiting, and response rates (based on monthly migraine days and total headache days). The Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ) and the Weight Satisfaction Scale Questionnaire, which measures subjective satisfaction with current weight, were administered. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were monitored through the end of double-blind treatment. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 331 subjects (172 topiramate, 159 amitriptyline; 84.9% female; 84.6% white; mean [SD] age, 38.8 [11.0] years; mean weight, 77.1 [20.1] kg) who provided at least 1 efficacy assessment. The least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline in the mean monthly number of migraine episodes was not significantly different between the topiramate and amitriptyline groups (-2.6 and -2.7, respectively; 95% CI, -0.6 to 0.7). There were no significant differences between treatment groups in any of the prespecified secondary outcome measures. Subjects receiving topiramate had a significantly greater improvement in mean functional disability scores during migraine attacks compared with amitriptyline (LSM change: -0.33 vs -0.19; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.0; P = 0.040) and in the role function-restrictive, role function-preventive, and emotional function domains of the MSQ (P = 0.012, P = 0.014, and P = 0.029, respectively). Subjects receiving topiramate had a mean weight loss of 2.4 kg, compared with a mean weight gain of 2.4 kg in subjects receiving amitriptyline. Subjects in the topiramate group reported an overall improvement from baseline in weight satisfaction, whereas the amitriptyline group reported an overall deterioration in weight satisfaction (P < 0.001, topiramate vs amitriptyline). TEAEs of mild or moderate severity were reported in 118 subjects (66.7%) in the topiramate group and 112 subjects (66.3%) in the amitriptyline group. Among the most common TEAEs (reported in +/-5% of subjects during the double-blind phase) in the topiramate group were paresthesia (29.9%), fatigue (16.9%), somnolence (11.9%), hypoesthesia (10.7%), and nausea (10.2%). The most commonly reported TEAEs in the amitriptyline group were dry mouth (35.5%), fatigue (24.3%), somnolence (17.8%), weight increase (13.6%), dizziness (10.7%), and sinusitis (10.7%). CONCLUSIONS: In this noninferiority study, topiramate was at least as effective as amitriptyline in terms of reducing the rate of mean monthly migraine episodes and all prespecified secondary efficacy end points. Topiramate was associated with improvement in some quality-of-life indicators compared with amitriptyline and was associated with weight loss and improved weight satisfaction.

Allodynia-associated symptoms, pain intensity and time to treatment: predicting treatment response in acute migraine intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between treatment outcomes and allodynia-associated symptoms (AAS) at the time of treatment with almotriptan. METHODS: Analyses were performed with data collected prospectively from patients in 2 recently completed early intervention trials, AXERT Early miGraine Intervention Study (AEGIS) and AXERT 12.5 mg time vs Intensity Migraine Study (AIMS): 2-hour pain free, 2-hour pain relief (AEGIS only), sustained pain free (SPF), use of rescue medication, and median headache duration (AIMS only), in the presence and absence of pretreatment AAS, which was determined by responses to a questionnaire. Analyses were conducted to evaluate possible prognostic variables. RESULTS: The presence of pretreatment AAS did not have a significant effect on 2-hour pain-free, 2-hour pain-relief or SPF rates, use of rescue medication, or headache duration. Significant factors for most favorable outcomes (greater 2-hour pain-free, 2-hour pain-relief and SPF rates, less use of rescue medication, and shorter headache duration) included treatment with almotriptan 12.5 mg, treatment of mild or moderate headache pain, and treatment within 1 hour of headache onset. CONCLUSION: Almotriptan 12.5 mg was efficacious in providing 2-hour pain free, 2-hour pain relief, SPF, and reducing rescue medication use irrespective of the presence of AAS at the time of treatment. The most optimal efficacy outcomes occurred when patients treated migraine attacks early and before the onset of severe pain. The presence of AAS, which may indicate an early phase of allodynia, did not influence the efficacy of almotriptan therapy.

Topiramate treatment of chronic migraine: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of quality of life and other efficacy measures.

OBJECTIVE: To define yet more clearly the utility of topiramate in the treatment of chronic migraine, we evaluated prespecified secondary endpoints from a recent randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial. BACKGROUND: We previously reported that topiramate 100 mg per day produced a statistically significant reduction in mean monthly migraine/migrainous and migraine headache days compared with placebo treatment and that it was safe and generally well tolerated. METHODS: Variables analyzed included between-treatment group differences in percent responders, change in the mean monthly rate of total headache days and headache-free days, change in average and worst daily headache severity, change in the mean monthly use of acute headache medications, and absolute change and percent change in a headache index. Additional analyses included evaluation of changes in: the associated symptoms of photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea; Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire scores; Migraine Disability Assessment Scale scores; and Physician's and Subjects Global Impression of Change. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population consisted of 306 patients (topiramate, n = 153; placebo, n = 153). Categorical responder rates of reductions in mean monthly migraine/migrainous days for topiramate- vs placebo-treated subjects were as follows: for > or =25% reduction: 68.6% vs 51.6% (P = .005); > or =50%: 37.3% vs 28.8% (P = .093); and > or =75%: 15.0% vs 9.2% (P = .061). The decrease in mean monthly total headache days and headache-free days for topiramate vs placebo treatment was 5.8 vs 4.7 days (P = .067). Compared with placebo, topiramate treatment resulted in statistically significant mean improvements in the Role Restrictive (P = .028) and Emotional Function (P = .036) domains of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, in the worst daily severity of migraine (P = .016), severity of photophobia (P = .032), frequency of vomiting (P = .018), photophobia (P = .038), phonophobia (P = .010), unilateral pain (P = .015), pulsatile pain (P = .023), and pain worsened because of physical activity (P = .047). In addition, there were trends observed (favoring topiramate) in average daily severity of migraine (P = .077), acute headache medication use (P = .127), severity of nausea (P = .098), frequency of nausea (P = .166), the Role Preventive domain of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (P = .061), and severity of phonophobia (P = .062). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to significantly reducing mean monthly migraine/migrainous and migraine headache days, treatment of chronic migraine with topiramate was effective with regard to several traditionally important and clinically relevant secondary outcomes in migraine prevention trials. Treatment with topiramate was well tolerated and not associated with serious adverse events.

A multicenter, outpatient, open-label study to evaluate the dosing, effectiveness, and safety of topiramate as monotherapy in the treatment of epilepsy in clinical practice.

This 24-week, multicenter, open-label trial was designed to evaluate the dosing, effectiveness, and safety of topiramate monotherapy for epilepsy and to identify patient and clinical characteristics predictive of optimally effective stabilized monotherapy doses. Of 406 randomized patients, 244 comprised the evaluable-for-efficacy population (12 weeks of treatment and stabilized topiramate dose during final 28 days); 213 were on topiramate monotherapy at the end of the trial. The mean stabilized daily dose of topiramate over the last 28 days of treatment (primary endpoint) was significantly lower for patients reporting one to three seizures (low seizure frequency, n=147) than for those reporting more than three seizures (high seizure frequency, n=66) during a 3-month retrospective baseline period (191 mg vs 239 mg, P=0.003). Patients in the low-seizure-frequency group reached a stable topiramate dose after a median of 36 days, compared with 53 days for patients in the high-seizure-frequency group. Linear and stepwise regression analyses showed baseline seizure frequency and lifetime seizure count to be significant (P<0.05) predictors of the stabilized dosage. Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate; those occurring with cumulative incidence rates >10% in either seizure frequency group were paresthesia, fatigue, anorexia, dizziness, somnolence, headache, and hypoesthesia; 18.2% of patients discontinued topiramate because of a TEAE, 5.1% reported serious TEAEs, and no deaths were reported during the study.

Epidemiology, risk factors, and treatment of chronic migraine: a focus on topiramate.

The term chronic daily headache refers to a heterogeneous group of headache disorders characterized by a frequency of headaches on > or = 15 days per month. Chronic migraine is a subtype of chronic daily headache. The prevalence of chronic migraine is approximately 1%. Baseline attack frequency and acute medication overuse have been identified as potential risk factors for the progression of migraine from an episodic disorder to a chronic condition. There is an unmet patient need for effective and safe treatments for patients with chronic migraine, but data from rigorous controlled trials are limited. Previous studies have demonstrated that topiramate is an effective and safe preventive treatment for episodic migraine. In addition, pilot studies have suggested the utility of topiramate for the prevention of chronic migraine. Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trials investigating the efficacy and safety of topiramate in the treatment of patients with chronic migraine have recently been completed. This review presents comparative data from these 2 clinical trials, which suggest that topiramate at a dose of 100 mg daily is effective and generally well tolerated in chronic migraine.

Analysis of safety and tolerability data obtained from over 1,500 patients receiving topiramate for migraine prevention in controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: Topiramate is an effective and generally well-tolerated migraine preventive therapy, as shown in three large, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled registration trials. Based upon efficacy/tolerability, topiramate 100 mg/day (50 mg BID) is the recommended target dose for most patients with migraine. To further assess the safety and tolerability of topiramate for migraine prevention, we analyzed safety data from 1,580 patients who participated in the three pivotal registration trials or an earlier pilot, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. METHODS: The safety population consisted of all patients who took >or=1 dose of study medication during the double-blind phase (topiramate 50 mg/day [N = 235], 100 mg/day [N = 386], 200 mg/day [N = 514], or placebo [N = 445]). Safety assessments included adverse event (AE) reports, physical examination, and clinical laboratory tests. RESULTS: Paresthesia was the most common topiramate-associated AE (35%, 51%, and 49% of patients receiving topiramate 50 mg/day, 100 mg/day, or 200 mg/day, respectively [6% on placebo]). The most common topiramate-associated AE were generally mild or moderate in severity and occurred at consistently higher rates during the titration period, compared with the maintenance period of the double-blind phase. AEs leading to withdrawal from the recommended dose of topiramate 100 mg/day included paresthesia (8%), fatigue (5%), nausea (2%), and difficulty with concentration (2%). Serious AEs were infrequent, occurring in 2% of 1,135 topiramate-treated patients and 3% of 445 placebo-treated patients. Patients on topiramate experienced significant decreases in mean body weight compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Topiramate is generally safe and reasonably well tolerated for the prevention of migraine in adults. The most common topiramate-associated AEs were mild or moderate in severity and occurred more frequently during titration to target doses.

Efficacy and tolerability of topiramate 200 mg/d in the prevention of migraine with/without aura in adults: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 12-week pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Several large, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have found topiramate (TPM) to be effective and generally well tolerated as a preventive therapy for migraine. OBJECTIVE: This paper evaluates efficacy and safety data from a pilot study of TPM 200 mg/d as preventive therapy in adult subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura. METHODS: The pilot study had a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design. Subjects were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive TPM 200 mg/d or placebo. The double-blind treatment phase consisted of an 8-week titration period (25 mg/d for the first week, followed by weekly increases of 25 mg) and a 12-week maintenance period. The primary efficacy measure was the change in mean monthly migraine frequency. Additional measures were the median percent reduction in monthly migraine frequency and the proportion of responders (those with > or =50%, > or =75%, or 100% reduction in monthly migraine frequency). RESULTS: The intent-to-treat (ITT) population included 211 subjects (138 TPM, 73 placebo; mean [SD] mean weight, 76.7 [18.7] kg). Of 45 subjects who discontinued the study in the TPM group, 21 discontinued during the titration period, compared with 3 of 13 subjects who discontinued in the placebo group. When the efficacy data were assessed using the per-protocol, analysis-of-covariance model, TPM 200 mg/d was not associated with a significant reduction in mean monthly migraine frequency compared with placebo. A post hoc analysis using a Poisson regression model in the ITT population suggested that TPM significantly reduced mean monthly migraine frequency compared with placebo (P=0.04). A significantly larger proportion of TPM-treated subjects had a > or =75% reduction in monthly migraine frequency compared with placebo (P=0.03). At least 1 adverse event was reported by 90.0% and 69.9% of the TPM and placebo groups, respectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurring in > or =10% of subjects in the TPM group were paresthesia (45%), dizziness (16%), fatigue (16%), nausea (14%), and weight loss (14%). Most treatment-emergent AEs were rated mild or moderate in severity. Of 3 serious AEs (depression, abdominal pain, leg pain) occurring during the trial, none were considered related to either TPM or placebo. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, mean monthly migraine frequency did not differ significantly between TPM and placebo.

Topiramate in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine: a combined analysis from pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

The safety and efficacy of medications for preventive treatment of migraine is the subject of current concern and investigation in health care. Two single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of topiramate for migraine prophylaxis. Seventy patients with a diagnosis of migraine were randomly assigned to topiramate-treated and placebo groups. The studies consisted of a 4-week baseline phase, a 6-8 week titration, and 8-12 weeks of maintenance. Topiramate was titrated from an initial dose of 25 mg/day to a target dose of 100 mg BID. The primary efficacy measure, the mean 28-day migraine frequency, was lower in topiramate-treated patients than in the placebo group (3.2 versus 3.8, P=.001). Similarly, topiramate treatment resulted in a significantly greater mean reduction in migraine frequency than did placebo (1.55 versus 0.47, P=.001) and a significantly higher responder rate (35.3% versus 8.3%, P=.008). Paresthesia was the most common side effect reported with topiramate treatment. Other topiramate-associated adverse events included altered taste, memory impairment, diarrhea, and appetite suppression/weight loss. The rates of discontinuation were similar for the topiramate group (n=10) and the placebo group (n=8). These results suggest that topiramate is effective and well tolerated in the preventive treatment of migraine headaches.

Paliperidone palmitate and risperidone long-acting injectable in subjects with schizophrenia recently treated with oral risperidone or other oral antipsychotics.

BACKGROUND: This post hoc subgroup analysis of a randomized, double-blind trial evaluated the response to treatment with two long-acting injectable atypical antipsychotics, ie, paliperidone palmitate and risperidone long-acting injectable (RLAI), in subjects with schizophrenia experiencing clinically significant symptoms despite recent treatment with oral risperidone only or other oral antipsychotics. METHODS: Adult subjects were eligible for the 13-week, double-blind, double-dummy trial (NCT00589914) if they had an established diagnosis of schizophrenia for at least one year and a Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score of 60-120 inclusive at screening. Subjects received either paliperidone palmitate (234 mg, day 1; 156 mg, day 8; then once-monthly flexible dosing) or RLAI (25-50 mg biweekly, with oral risperidone supplementation on days 1-28), plus matched placebo injections/tablets. RESULTS: This post hoc analysis reports data on 747 subjects who, within 2 weeks of starting double-blind study medication, had reportedly received oral risperidone only (paliperidone palmitate group, n = 126; RLAI group, n = 107), other oral antipsychotics (paliperidone palmitate group, n = 199; RLAI group, n = 203), or no antipsychotic (paliperidone palmitate group, n = 56; RLAI group, n = 56). Mean PANSS total scores improved significantly at end point across all subgroups (mean change from baseline ranged from -17.5 to -19.5, all P < 0.0001). Clinical Global Impression-Severity and Personal and Social Performance scale measures also significantly improved from baseline (all P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Treatment with paliperidone palmitate or RLAI resulted in a significant reduction in the symptoms of schizophrenia irrespective of previous recent treatment with oral risperidone only or other oral antipsychotics. For subjects who had previously received oral risperidone only, the difference in formulation was the main change in the intervention because the molecule delivered remained the same or similar. These data support the contribution of a long-acting formulation to improving the treatment response and suggest that nonadherence may be a significant contributor to inadequate efficacy of oral formulations in subjects with schizophrenia.

Analysis of pooled data from two pivotal controlled trials on the efficacy of topiramate in the prevention of migraine.

CONTEXT: A substantial proportion of the patient population with migraine headache should be considered for preventive treatment based on the frequency and disability associated with this disorder. Use of the anticonvulsant topiramate was previously examined in two large, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of a subset of patients who have 3 to 12 migraine episodes per month. OBJECTIVE: To better characterize the efficacy of topiramate for prevention of migraine, with or without aura, by pooling and analyzing data from the two large clinical trials. METHODS: The pooled intent-to-treat population included 937 patients receiving topiramate at one of three dosages (50 mg/d, 100 mg/d, 200 mg/d) or placebo. Outcome measures included change in mean monthly migraine frequency and categorical responder rate throughout the 26-week doubleblind phase. RESULTS: At daily doses of 100 and 200 mg, topiramate was associated with significant reductions in mean monthly migraine frequency throughout the double-blind phase compared with placebo (P<.001). Significantly more patients treated with these topiramate doses exhibited high-percentage reductions in monthly migraine frequency (>/=50% [P<.001], >/=75% [P<.001], 100% [P=.049]) versus placebo. The most common adverse events included anorexia, cognitive deficits, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and paresthesia. Topiramate (100 mg/d, 200 mg/d) was associated with significant and sustained reductions in mean monthly migraine frequency beginning as early as 1 week into therapy. CONCLUSION: Pooled efficacy data from two large, similarly designed, placebo-controlled migraine-prevention trials demonstrated that a statistically significant proportion of patients using topiramate met or exceeded two main outcome guidelines recommended by the International Headache Society (>/=50% and >/=75% reduction in frequency of monthly attacks). Based on efficacy and tolerability, topiramate at a dosage of 100 mg per day (50 mg twice daily) should be the target dosage for most patients with migraine.

Assessment of interrater and intrarater reliability of the Fahn-Tolosa-Marin Tremor Rating Scale in essential tremor.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate interrater and intrarater reliability of the Fahn-Tolosa-Marin Tremor Rating Scale (TRS) in essential tremor (ET). Proper treatment of ET is contingent upon correct assessment of the severity, loss of function, and disability related to tremor. Videotape recordings of 17 subjects with ET evaluated with the TRS were produced and sent to 59 raters. Once the raters returned the videotape and completed the score sheet, they were mailed a second tape with the same recordings presented in a different order. In the interrater reliability evaluation, modified Kappa statistics for seven tremor type composites ranged from 0.10 to 0.65 in the first videotape and 0.17 to 0.62 in the second videotape. Interrater reliabilities were greater for Part A items (magnitude of tremor in different body parts) than for Part B items (tremor in writing and drawings) of the TRS. The average Spearman correlation was 0.87, indicating very good consistency between the two videotapes, but correlations for Part A were somewhat better than for Part B. It is best when the same rater performs repeated measures of tremor on a patient, particularly when judging tremor in handwriting and drawings. Training of raters on use of the TRS would help standardize judgement.